Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/13/2004 2:17:41 PM EST
Please make this about sunsetted/repealed laws in general.. Pleanty of comments already on my stupidity .

Now, to my understanding, when a law "sunsets or is repealed" it's as if the the particular law never existed legally. Thusly, it is no longer in the "law books", cannot be referenced for prosecution, etc, "because it does not exist" anymore.

If "the law" no longer exists it is no longer relevant whether someone violated the (at the time) law unless they were charged and/or prosecuted "during" its' existance. It is not enforceable, as there is nothing to enforce.

Sunset provision meant automatic "repeal" by a certain date. Repeal being "an official or legal cancellation" in definition.

So can one (and how) be prosecuted for violating a law after it has been repealed if one violated the same law before it was repealed? I'm saying charged and prosecuted after the law repeal (not charged or during the period the law was in effect)

Kind of an opposite Ex Post Facto law reasoning.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:26:28 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:27:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Xer0:
Please make this about sunsetted/repealed laws in general.. Pleanty of comments already on my stupidity .

Now, to my understanding, when a law "sunsets or is repealed" it's as if the the particular law never existed legally. Thusly, it is no longer in the "law books", cannot be referenced for prosecution, etc, "because it does not exist" anymore.

If "the law" no longer exists it is no longer relevant whether someone violated the (at the time) law unless they were charged and/or prosecuted "during" its' existance. It is not enforceable, as there is nothing to enforce.

Sunset provision meant automatic "repeal" by a certain date. Repeal being "an official or legal cancellation" in definition.

So can one (and how) be prosecuted for violating a law after it has been repealed if one violated the same law before it was repealed? I'm saying charged and prosecuted after the law repeal (not charged or during the period the law was in effect)

Kind of an opposite Ex Post Facto law reasoning.



Not entirely correct. If you violated the AWB while it was still in existance (for example, August of this year), you could be prosecuted for it NOW (after it has expired) provided there's proof and the ATF wants to pursue it (not likely). IIRC, they even state this in their press release regarding the demise of the AWB.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:28:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:34:07 PM EST
Why can't you just go to the ATF website and read where says that if you violated the law before the sunset, YOU ARE STILL SCREWED!

ps. you should also leave well enough alone, and drop this subject.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:37:11 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:37:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Xer0:
Please make this about sunsetted/repealed laws in general.. Pleanty of comments already on my stupidity .

Now, to my understanding, when a law "sunsets or is repealed" it's as if the the particular law never existed legally. Thusly, it is no longer in the "law books", cannot be referenced for prosecution, etc, "because it does not exist" anymore.

If "the law" no longer exists it is no longer relevant whether someone violated the (at the time) law unless they were charged and/or prosecuted "during" its' existance. It is not enforceable, as there is nothing to enforce.

Sunset provision meant automatic "repeal" by a certain date. Repeal being "an official or legal cancellation" in definition.

So can one (and how) be prosecuted for violating a law after it has been repealed if one violated the same law before it was repealed? I'm saying charged and prosecuted after the law repeal (not charged or during the period the law was in effect)

Kind of an opposite Ex Post Facto law reasoning.



Technically a Prosecutor could still charge your with the crime however, there was a case in Missouri were are local prosecutor was charging a man with a sex crime in order to keep him in custody for more serious crimes that charges were not yet ready for issue of warrant. The man "sodomized" a willing homesexual partner, under Missouri law it was illegal regardless of consent. Prior to prosecution, Missouri law changed and sodomy was no longer illegal, the prosector dropped the sodomy charge and ultimately released the subject.

All of this happened while I was working at the Courthouse. I spoke with the prosecutor about the case and he said that he would never get a conviction with the law being overturned.

In short, I highly doubt anyone would go through with a weapons charge on a law that no longer exist, but anything is possible depending on the agressiveness of the prosecution.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:46:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2004 2:48:43 PM EST by Xer0]
Well thank you for those reasonable people who replied. As I didn't know. Now for you other asses, eat shit. OK I did a goof up, but didn't realize the seriousness of it or I wouldn't have told anyone here.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:51:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 2:55:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2004 2:58:46 PM EST by AR-10]
The other asses can eat shit?

I had to go back several pages to find another thread (not THE thread) where you were told exactly what you are asking right now.

How many times do you need to hear it?

You should apologize to everyone who was curteous enough to answer you at all, in any of your threads. Quit acting like a complete jerk.

Editted for spelling. (I hate that.)
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 3:03:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2004 3:03:13 PM EST by SNorman]
Were any people charged with illegal alcohol production/consumption/etc. after prohibition was repealed?
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 3:06:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 3:47:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 3:51:00 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 4:38:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
i think we are about to see something funny



Yes, but you'll have to explain it 10 times across 3 threads for it to be understood.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 5:06:12 PM EST
Top Top